RE: STK DisplayText changes proposal
Hi Andrew,
On 23 November 2010 18:08, Denis Kenzior <denkenz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/2010 10:55 AM, Andrzej Zaborowski wrote:
>> As for the clear after delay flag, there's a check for it in
>> display_text_cb (line 1248). As far as I can make out the only
>> difference is the response sent to the SIM.
>
> So it has been a long time since those discussions, but it does seem
to
> me that using a higher timeout in the case of 'wait_for_user' flag
seems
> like a good idea. Do you remember why we left this out?
No, I don't, I'll send a patch to use the normal timeout instead of
short timeout when clearing after user action is requested. As for
the proposal to add a parameter clear_after_delay and the ScreenBusy
response I'm fine with both of them (as I don't think the saving from
hiding these details is worth it) but I leave it up to you and
Guillaume. It seems that a user action always clears the message but
it may be good to display a "confirm" button anyway. The ScreenBusy
response is also possible for other proactive commands so for
consistency would need to be added there too.
For the 'clear_after_delay' flag your patch to used the normal timeout and not the
short when a user request is waiting will be probably sufficient for the moment. For the
ScreenBusy response I'm agree with you that this response is also possible for other
proactive commands. I'll do the necessary patch for this.
Regards,
Guillaume
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation SAS (French simplified joint stock company)
Registered headquarters: "Les Montalets"- 2, rue de Paris,
92196 Meudon Cedex, France
Registration Number: 302 456 199 R.C.S. NANTERRE
Capital: 4,572,000 Euros
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.